Obama vs the Special Olympics

[Imran Siddiqui]

He is talking about the Laffer Curve; however, Tax rates during the Clinon administration seem to indicate that we are no where close to the downslope (that's the main problem... where on the Laffer Curve are we - no one can really pinpoint us).

The main problem is that people believe ridiculous things like that some inviolate economic law dictates that the dependence the tax rate has on revenue is "U shaped" (or has a unique local maximum, for that matter).

I think it tends to make sense that if you tax people too much, they'll have less incentive (how much less is, of course, open to debate) to innovate or will engage in more hiding of revenues (as the relative cost of hiding income becomes less as the tax rate rises).

The U-shape is, obviously, somewhat short hand.

[The Mad Monk]

"He read that opening statement from one massive TV monitor from the back and middle of the East Room. White House officials removed the normal glass teleprompters that usually are positioned on both sides of the podium. That change likely a reaction to the focus on the President's heavy use of teleprompters."

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/304123.html

FAIL.

[Ramo]

rt:

I suppose it might be mildly amusing to watch you try to justify your belief in this "economic principle." So put up...

[Ramo]

The U-shape is, obviously, somewhat short hand.

It's not a "short hand." It's a religious belief that obscures any connection that economics might have with empirical measures.

[Kuciwalker]

I like Megan McCardle's idea that instead of tax tiers, there should be a sliding scale formula based on your income. Highest pay 40-45% (and that wouldn't be the $250k people, but more the $1bil folks) all the way down.

Uh, how is that actually different?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Uh, how is that actually different?

Cause there are no tax tables. It's simply a formula. You plug in your AGI and out spits your tax. And its on a sliding scale, so no tax brackets.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not a "short hand." It's a religious belief that obscures any connection that economics might have with empirical measures.

Just about everyone can agree that if an increase in tax rates leads to a decrease in tax revenues, then taxes are too high. It is also generally agreed that at some level of taxation, revenues will turn down. Determining the level of taxation where revenues are maximized is more controversial.

As Paul Pecorino stated in the Journal of Monetary Economics
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_...ecorino1995-10).

So yes, a U shape is short hand.

[Ramo]

That quote has absolutely nothing to do with a "U shape."

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is also generally agreed that at some level of taxation, revenues will turn down.

What shape does that indicate to you?

[Ramo]

An uncountably infinite number of shapes satisfy the conditions at 0 and 100% tax rates.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

All of which when smoothed for accuracy of measurement assume roughly a "U" shape.

[DirtyMartini]

Not just infinite, but uncountably infinite? That is a lot, then.

:wink:

[rtwinger]

rt:

I suppose it might be mildly amusing to watch you try to justify your belief in this "economic principle." So put up...

I'm not an economics professor, I'm mainly a student of urban planning and political science, so an effeminate intellectual like you will probably make better headway if you research the topic yourself.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Not just infinite, but uncountably infinite? That is a lot, then.

:wink:

Uncountable by you or me but not Chuck Norris.

[Japher]

I'm mainly a student of urban planning and political science, so an effeminate intellectual like you will probably make better headway if you research the topic yourself.

Only pseudo-intellectuals study urban planning and political science (i.e. play SimCity and argue with Alex Trebek about Jeopardy answers). Real men don't bother researching topics they just make sweeping generalizations without any real support, everyone knows that.

So, just for the record, anyone who argues with me is wrong. - FACT!